How can a moral code be objective?

[Chien]

How can ethics be couched in an objective context??

Ethics, the practical branch of philosophy, is concerned with human conduct. Ethics serves as a guide to human action. So it deals with subjects - individual human beings. Objects as opposed to subjects are devoid of emotional content, consciousness and meaning. A purely objective view of individuals and the world is a quantitative worldview. Therefore, a purely objective worldview cannot render normative moral judgments.

Logic or reason is concerned with the quantitative/objective etc.

An ethical system can be logically consistent or inconsistent but it can never be justified by logic.

Ms. Rand's assertion about man's nature and the paramount importance of self-interest, to the exclusion of other ppl's welling being, is a choice, not a necessary conclusion driven by the sheer force of logic.

[Evangelical Capitalist]

Read "The Objectivist Ethics," the opening essay in The Virtue of Selfishness. It should answer your questions, which stem from a lack of understanding of what a system of ethics is and why it is necessary.

Ethics, the practical branch of philosophy, is concerned with human conduct. Ethics serves as a guide to human action. So it deals with subjects - individual human beings. Objects as opposed to subjects are devoid of emotional content, consciousness and meaning. A purely objective view of individuals and the world is a quantitative worldview. Therefore, a purely objective worldview cannot render normative moral judgments.

Reason and logic are capable of dealing with people and with emotions. The idea that they're not stems from the epistemological notion that emotions are a primary source of knowledge, unconcerned with and entirely independent of the observable facts of reality. Reason and logic are also more than capable of dealing with values, which are of primary concern in the field of ethics, ethics being a system of values. Objectivism holds that value "presupposes an answer to the questions: of value to whom and for what." Value, therefore, is neither intrinsic (an inherent property of the object itself) nor is it subjective (i.e. one individual's assessment of value is not necessarily equally valid with that of another.) It is objective.

Ms. Rand's assertion about man's nature and the paramount importance of self-interest, to the exclusion of other ppl's welling being, is a choice, not a necessary conclusion driven by the sheer force of logic.

The choice of holding one's own life as a standard of value, and thus as an objective standard of ethics, is recognized as a "pre-moral" choice. Since life is "a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action," it is, however, a necessary one. It must also be pointed out that choosing one's own life as the highest standard of value, the only value that is an end in itself, is not "to the exclusion of other people's well-being." You've accepted, in that statement, the false dichotomy that everyone is either a self-sacrificing masochist, or a sadist, living off the sacrifices of others. The rationally self-interested person requires others to do the same, both from a practical standpoint, as traders of value for value, and from a moral standpoint, since he or she does not desire to benefit from the sacrifices of others.

[AshRyan]

There's also a confusion regarding the notion of "objectivity" in Chien's post, in his assumption that anything involving a subject is necessarily cut off from full objectivity. That conclusion he tries to draw simply does not follow from the arguments he provides for it. And with a proper understanding of "objectivity" (as an epistemological concept denoting a certain relationship between a consciousness and external reality--i.e., between a subject and an object--not primarily as a metaphysical concept denoting simply external reality apart from consciousness), the objection vanishes.

[Chien]

Reason and logic are capable of dealing with people and with emotions.

I am not saying logic has nothing to do people, emotions or ethics; I am saying the foundation of any ethical system cannot be justified by logic.

The idea that they're not stems from the epistemological notion that emotions are a primary source of knowledge, unconcerned with and entirely independent of the observable facts of reality.

This is a completely unfounded assertion, not an argument. Whoever thinks logic is incapable of serving as the foundation of ethics are believers of emotionalism? THIS is a false dichotomy.

Reason and logic are also more than capable of dealing with values..

Another assertion that lacks justification.

Objectivism holds that value "presupposes an answer to the questions: of value to whom and for what."  Value, therefore, is neither intrinsic (an inherent property of the object itself) nor is it subjective (i.e. one individual's assessment of value is not necessarily equally valid with that of another.)  It is objective.

What does this mean??? if values do not reside within the individual and neither do they reside within the object, then where are they??SHOW ME. Saying something is OBJECTIVE does not explain anything; this is nominal fallacy: using facy nice sounding term as substitute for valid explanations.

The choice of holding one's own life as a standard of value, and thus as an objective standard of ethics, is recognized as a "pre-moral" choice.  Since life is "a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action," it is, however, a necessary one.

What is this "pre-moral" choice? At any rate, holding one's own life and interests as the ultimate value and goal is a "choice," is it not? You say it is a necessary "choice"; now that's an oxymoron.

It must also be pointed out that choosing one's own life as the highest standard of value, the only value that is an end in itself, is not "to the exclusion of other people's well-being."  You've accepted, in that statement, the false dichotomy that everyone is either a self-sacrificing masochist, or a sadist, living off the sacrifices of others.  The rationally self-interested person requires others to do the same, both from a practical standpoint, as traders of value for value, and from a moral standpoint, since he or she does not desire to benefit from the sacrifices of others.

Please open your dictionary:

"Merriam-Webster Dictionary"

Main Entry: self·ish

Pronunciation: 'sel-fish

Function: adjective

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

This is the definition of the word "selfish." Advancing an argument for the virtue of "selfishness" while redefining the term to mean "enlightened self-interest" (which has a much more expanded meaning and open to more interpretations) is commiting the logical flaw of unfairly redefining a key term.

Ok, let's play along with your definition of "enlightened self-interest". If you are a "trader of value" expecting others to be the same, does that mean if the other party has nothing to offer, then you would never give him/her what he/she wants or needs? If that were true, then the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, the youth and elders who have no value to render will be disregarded and left to die. The strong should not help the weak is what Ms. Rand was saying. Eventhough Ms. Rand despised Nietzche, she had the same sentiment of indignation that the weak are leaches holding the strong back.

Enough of assertions and rhetorics; how about some real thought and arguments?

[Chien]

The epistemic conception of objectivity only applies to judgments, beliefs, etc., that corresponds to mind independent external reality OR inter subjective agreements. In other words, if a claim is a physical claim about physical reality, then the claim is objectively true if and only if the claim corresponds, mirrors the physical reality. If a claim is about a value-jdgment shared by a population, an agreement or consencus among the population in question is sufficient to justify the objectivity of the claim.

Neither of these epistemic notion of objectivity applies to the value of selfishness.

[y_feldblum]

The definition of life, a continuous process of self-generated, self-sustaining action necessitates logic as the foundation of ethics.

Living things have the choice to exist as life or not. Insofar as they choose to do so, they are alive. Rational animals - men - have volitional choice, necessitating a code of ethics to determine exactly what actions serve to sustain life and what not.

The definition of life implies fact, and ethic where reason exists.

"The good" is not intrinsic - does not exist independent of context - , is not subjective - does not exist independent of reality -; it exists both dependent on context and as a relationship between the value-judge and that which is judged.

Comparative advantage - every person, no matter how old, sick, etc., can produce and trade to his and every one else's best advantage. Google the term.

The strong (rational egoists) should not offer moral sanction to their parasites, the people deliberately holding them back as a moral action. See the difference between Dagny's assistant in AS and Keating/Toohey in tF. The former is weak but perfectly ethical, the latter are weak but entirely immoral. The strong have no right to prey on the weak, contrary to Neitzche; however, the weak have no right to prey on the strong either, contrary to you and the collectivist altruists.

[Chien]

The definition of life, a continuous process of self-generated, self-sustaining action necessitates logic as the foundation of ethics.  Living things have the choice to exist as life or not.  Insofar as they choose to do so, they are alive.  Rational animals - men - have volitional choice, necessitating a code of ethics to determine exactly what actions serve to sustain life and what not.

Theories of eusociality and kin selection from the field of evolutionary biology provide possible explanation and justifications for altruistic human behavior.  Selfishness is not an absolute necessity for life as a whole.

The definition of life implies fact, and ethic where reason exists.

Please explain what you are saying.  This is another rhetorical ploy.

"The good" is not intrinsic - does not exist independent of context - , is not subjective - does not exist independent of reality -; it exists both dependent on context and as a relationship between the value-judge and that which is judged.

Well, the "good" in your difinition is still judged by the value-judge.  People's judgments vary; value-judgments are not universally the same.  I know you would want to say those who judge differently from you are not "objective" or "rational."  You could be right, hypothetically, but where is the justification?  Name calling is hardly a proof.  where is the beef??

Comparative advantage - every person, no matter how old, sick, etc., can produce and trade to his and every one else's best advantage.

I Beg to differ.  Comparative advantage produces net increase in production for the parties taken together as a whole.  But this does not take into consideration of the implications for future developments.  If person X has comparative advantage at mopping floor and peson Y has comparative advantage at writing computer programs, I wouldn't advice person X to be happy and content with his dead end job; it has no growth potential.  Comparative advantage only looks at the net output of the whole economy at any given time without looking at the opportunity costs for individuals.  So by following comparative advantage, it is not true every person can produce and trade to his/her best advantage.

Moreover, what about those people who don't even have comparative advantage?  The lame, sick, elders, and infants etc?  What do they have to trade for?

The strong (rational egoists) should not offer moral sanction to their parasites, the people deliberately holding them back as a moral action.  See the difference between Dagny's assistant in AS and Keating/Toohey in tF.  The former is weak but perfectly ethical, the latter are weak but entirely immoral.  The strong have no right to prey on the weak, contrary to Neitzche; however, the weak have no right to prey on the strong either, contrary to you and the collectivist altruists.

I am a free independent thinker; your name calling and quick identification of others in objectivist terminology shows your lack of independent judgment and reliance on objectivism as a substitute for independent thought.

Well, I agree that someone who loafs around does nothing shouldn't be given free elms. Loafers have no right to claim on those who work hard and produce. That I agree. However, by following the objectivist creed, one would walk pass a lame, sick, old person/infant lying on the street without blinking an eye because these downtrodden homeless have no value to trade for food and assistance. Isn't this true? Or do you really believe all people suffering in poverty/starvation deserve their fate because it was all their own doing?

[y_feldblum]

A thing that lives (as a fact) is by definition a thing that acts to live, to sustain its life (as a value). Ethics is a system of values for volitional action.

With life as the fundamental value, inferior values appear. These are, where volition exists, oughts. Taking A as life and B as an inferior value, the ought looks like: if B then A; ie in order to sustain life, certain subsidiary values are necessary; since the thing in general acts to sustain life, it ought to undertake these necessary values.

Logic.

Objectivism (lower-case o) contends that to judge a thing and decide its value - whether good or evil - it is necessary to consider oneself and one's relation to the thing, as well as the thing and its context as an entity existent in reality. Intrinsicism considers the first condition as unnecessary, while subjectivism considers the second as unnecessary. Nihilism rejects both conditions as it rejects the concept of value-judgment.

People's judgments do vary, but what of that?

Comparative advantage exists everywhere, regardless of absolute advantage, so long as the person can act. Your example was silly and context-less, and your assumption of the scope of the concept wrong. It exists at every economic level and describes the producer/trader relationships between two or more people, groups, nations, geographic areas, etc.

You were particularly quick that time to catch my lack of independent judgment and my mindless reliance on Objectivism as a substitute. However, you should know, that type of argument is what's known as a fallacy in logic, specifically argumentum ad hominem. My personal judgment has no bearing on my words: judge them, not me; debate them, not me.

The moral and strong include Dagny Taggart and the rest who end up in Atlantis.

The moral and weak include Dagny's assistant, who in no way was a parasite, as well as John Galt during his twelve-year stint organizing the strike.

The immoral and strong include the Neitzchean Toohey.

The immoral and weak include the altruist Keating.

Where are your downtrodden homeless? And what is your rational (as opposed to emotional) point?

[poohat]

"Merriam-Webster Dictionary"

Main Entry: self·ish

Pronunciation: 'sel-fish

Function: adjective

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

This is the definition of the word "selfish."  Advancing an argument for the virtue of "selfishness" while redefining the term to mean "enlightened self-interest" (which has a much more expanded meaning and open to more interpretations) is commiting the logical flaw of unfairly redefining a key term. 

Ok, let's play along with your definition of "enlightened self-interest".  If you are a "trader of value" expecting others to be the same, does that mean if the other party has nothing to offer, then you would never give him/her what he/she wants or needs?  If that were true, then the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, the youth and elders who have no value to render will be disregarded and left to die.  The strong should not help the weak is what Ms. Rand was saying.  Eventhough Ms. Rand despised Nietzche, she had the same sentiment of indignation that the weak are leaches holding the strong back. 

Enough of assertions and rhetorics; how about some real thought and arguments?

I think its pretty dumb to use a dictionary to debate the meaning of philosophical terms.

The word "selfish" has a precise and clearly defined meaning within Objectivist thought. Yes, this is slightly difference from its normal usage in day to day life, but almost all philosophical systems make use of specialised vocabulary that sometimes differs from standard usage. I'd say it's pretty much a given that when talking to an objectivist on an objectivist forum, their use of words like "altruist", "selfish" and "sacrifice" conforms to the definitions given by Rand, not the Oxford dictionary. What you're doing here is comparable to arguing with an existentialist that anxiety 'doesnt actually' mean what Sartre or Heidegger's translaters claimed it did, or saying that Nietzsche was dumb because he wanted humans to transform into a race of red caped men from the planet Krypton.

[DavidV]

The word "selfish" has a precise and clearly defined meaning within Objectivist thought.

The Objectivist definition of the concept of “selfishness” differs from the common usage because the accepted meaning is an anti-concept – a contradiction. It allows no distinction between a rationally self-interested man and a whim-worshiping brute, and instead groups them together by the non-essential “concern for oneself.”

(Definitions are not subjectively decided on by various groups, but refer to entities in reality – and hence their validity can be evaluated by how well they conform to reality.)

[Chien]

First of all, I want to say I am not a believer or follower of any philosophical system; I am a student of all schools of thoughts but at the end of the day, I make my own independent judgment. My only allegiance is to truth, wherever it leads me; Plato is my friend, Aristotle is my friend, but my best friend is truth, as a wise man once said. When I learn something new and find myself mistaken, I gladly change my mind. For me, it's not a matter of who is right, but what is the truth.

With life as the fundamental value, inferior values appear. These are, where volition exists, oughts. Taking A as life and B as an inferior value, the ought looks like: if B then A; ie in order to sustain life, certain subsidiary values are necessary; since the thing in general acts to sustain life, it ought to undertake these necessary values.

IF B=inferior value THEN A=life. In this example of yours, life is the necssary condition, value is the sufficient condition. In your example, "inferior value" is not the necessary conditon for life. Maybe you need to brush up on logic 101 if you have ever taken the course.

People's judgments do vary, but what of that?

Then the value you speak of is relative to each person's judgment, not absolute and universal.

Comparative advantage exists everywhere, regardless of absolute advantage, so long as the person can act. Your example was silly and context-less, and your assumption of the scope of the concept wrong. It exists at every economic level and describes the producer/trader relationships between two or more people, groups, nations, geographic areas, etc.

  What is your argument for saying my example is silly, contextless, my assumption wrong?  Do you know the difference between an argument and mud slinging?? I could be wrong and I'd appreciate substantive counter arguments.  The theory of comparative advantage IS about the net increase in output of the whole economy and nothing more.  This is the theory. 

You were particularly quick that time to catch my lack of independent judgment and my mindless reliance on Objectivism as a substitute. However, you should know, that type of argument is what's known as a fallacy in logic, specifically argumentum ad hominem. My personal judgment has no bearing on my words: judge them, not me; debate them, not me.

You labeled me as a "collectivist altruist" from reading what..two posts from me. I said you relied on Objectivism because the term "collectivist altruist" is an objectivist lingo and that your conceptual scheme, your frame of reference, your gestalt if you will, is confined within objectivism; that's why you pigeonholed me into objectivist ideology. This is false dichotomy; I could be of any number of other schools of thought.

  Where are your downtrodden homeless? And what is your rational (as opposed to emotional) point?

You gave a slew of fictional characters as examples of moral/immoral strong/weak personalities. Life is not fiction. My downtrodden homeless are all around us. Open you eyes.

My rational point is there are people suffering from poverty and stravation who are not blood sucking leaches. I believe they deserve our help, even when they do not have any value to offer at the moment. Why? Becaus I don't want to see human suffering and helping them makes me feel good.

Answer this: do infants, the old and lame have any value to offer? What about kids? They have comparative advantage at working in steel mills. Would you send your kids to steel mills to work instead of going to school? That's what happened during the industrial revolution. If they go to school, they are not exchanging any value for the value of their education, except perhaps the warm and fuzzy feeling called "love" that the parents feel. But objectivists wouldn't consider touchy feely things like "love" as a legitimate value right? Giving to people who have nothing to offer except the joy of the giving does not square with objectivism, am I correct?

[Chien]

The Objectivist definition of the concept of “selfishness” differs from the common usage because the accepted meaning is an anti-concept – a contradiction. It allows no distinction between a rationally self-interested man and a whim-worshiping brute, and instead groups them together by the non-essential “concern for oneself.”

Why don't you guys just use the phrase "enlightened self-interest" or any number of other terms? Redefining words prevents communication with people outside of your circle.

what do you mean by "non-essential concern for oneself"? Why is the definition of "selfishness" a anti-concept/contradiction? Selfish = excessive concern with one self. Where is the contradiction?

(Definitions are not subjectively decided on by various groups, but refer to entities in reality – and hence their validity can be evaluated by how well they conform to reality.)

The specific sound and spelling of English words are arbitrary, just like codes. If I call the color "white" "blue" and that every single person agrees and understands with my definition, then I would have no problem communication with others. For some hieroglyphic languages, such as Chinese, the shape of the charcters do represent the objects represented. What you are talking about is the correspondence theory of truth. We are talking about definition of words.

[Chien]

According to Ms. Rand, the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). Every single human being is self-interested. Being self interested is not immoral in almost all ethical system. The normal everyday definition of the word selfishness does not have the philosophical implications that Ms. Rand feared.

Here is the breakdown of selfish vs. altruistic behaviors and their respective beneficiaries.

(1) Acts that benefit the actor but has no effect on others. Almost all ethical systems sanction this.

(2) Acts that benefit the actor and also benefit others. Almost all ethical systems sanction this.

(3) Acts that benefit the actor but harm others. Almost all ethical systems prohibit this. THIS IS THE EVERYDAY MEANING OF THE WORD SELFISHNESS.

(4) Acts that harm the actor but has no effect on others. Almost all ethical systems prohibit this.

(5) Acts that harm the actor but benefit others. This is where objectist ethics diverge with most ethical systems. Most ethical systems say sacrificing time, money, energy to help others is a virtue, under certain conditions. THIS IS THE EVERYDAY MEANING OF THE WORD ALTRUISM. Objectivists believe if there is nothing in it for them, they have no ethical obligation to help others.

(6) Acts that harm the actor and also harm others. This is a no brainer; all ethical systems prohibit this.

Objectivists diverge on (5) with most ethical systems which promote altruism, the behavior of (5). My example of caring for infants, elders, lame and people otherwise debilitated, people who cannot offer value greater than the cost for you to give them what they need, is the test of whether you are an objectivist or an altruist.

Objectivists distort the meaning of the word "selfishness" to mean (1) and (2) instead of the everyday meaning of the word, which is (3). No ethical system that I know of object to (1) and (2); All ethical system that I am aware of are in agreement with Ms. Rand's "selfishness" as a virtue, ie (1) and (2). Striped of the specialized lingo, there's nothing provacative about Ms. Rand's selfishness.

[y_feldblum]

Chien,

My logic may often be expressed colloquially. You do have the option of intentionally misunderstanding me, and unless you want to play Devil's Advocate, excercising such is pointless. Furthermore, your argumentum ad hominem succeeded beautifully again in pronouncing me pathologically illogical.

There are no absolute/universal values. Objectivistm is not intrinsicism.

The theory of David Ricardo of comparative advantage as it applies to the output of a whole economy is as you say - applicable only to the output of the whole economy. Now, let us take an economy consisting of two people and see what the theory tells us. In fact, the theory of comparative advantage, extended, does not speak of economies, but of producers, as an economy is nothing more than the individual producers/traders/consumers.

Your rational point is entirely subjective and utterly emotional; it is pure whim devoid of the semblance of reason. Productive work is the highest of virtues - unless oppressed, your people suffering from poverty and starvation are not virtuous. Love is the highest of rewards.

[Chien]

My logic may often be expressed colloquially. You do have the option of intentionally misunderstanding me, and unless you want to play Devil's Advocate, excercising such is pointless. Furthermore, your argumentum ad hominem succeeded beautifully again in pronouncing me pathologically illogical.

I do not think you are pathologically illogical; if I do, I wouldn't be replying to you. I am sorry if you feel I have insulted you. My aim is to engage in substantive serious philosophical discussion and hope that in the process, the truth will emerge.

Okay, so let's reverse the terms of your statement: IF life THEN inferior values. The inferior values you refer to are the virtue of Randian selfishness (Acts that benefit the actor but has no effect on others; Acts that benefit the actor and also benefit others.) and the evil of altruism (Acts commited under certain conditions that harm the actor but benefit others).

I concede Randian "selfishness" or in everyday language being self-interested, is a necessary value for life. If a human being refrains from doing anything to ameleorate his/her conditions, such as nourishment intake, he/she would surely die.

However, the complete erasure of altruistic behavior is not a necessary conditon for an individual's life. For example, would you die if you give a quarter to a homeless on your way home everyday??

Moreover, if you are talking about the life or survival of a specie, theories of eusociality and kin selection from the field of evolutionary biology provide possible explanation and justifications for altruistic human behavior. Here is a grossly simplistic example: let's say an old woman and her cousin, a little boy, are the only surviving members of their extended family. The two of them carry common family genes. The little boy finds himself in a life threatening situation. The old woman sacrifices her life in saving the little boy's life. Eventhough she loses her life, she gets to pass on her genes through her cousin.

The "inferior value" of anti-altruism is not a NECESSARY condition for life (either individually or collectively).

There are no absolute/universal values. Objectivistm is not intrinsicism.

So if objectivists ethics is not absolute/universal, then it is relativistic, relative to each individual value judge and his or her context of judgment. Then where is the objectivity of objectivist ethics??

Judgments are made by judges or subjects, and therefore automatically subjective metaphysically speaking. Epistemically speaking, the possibility of objective judgments is open. There are two construals for the epistemic notion of objectivity.

If the judgment or claim is about a physical phenomena, then the judgment is epistemically objective if and only if it corresponds or mirrors with states of affairs in the external physical reality. However, even the correspondence theory of truth, which epistemic objectivity depends on, is only another theory of truth among many.

If the judgment or claim is about a social phenomena, then the judgment is epistemically objective if and only if it has wide spread agreement or unanimous consensus.

Morality is not a physical phenomena but exists both dependent on context and as a relationship between the value-judge and that which is judged; morality is a social phenomena. The objectivity of the Randian value-judgment that altruism (acts commited under certain conditions that harm the actor but benefit others; for example, mother Teresa's selfless giving of her time, money, energy and life to the poor of Calcutta) is evil has not achieved wide-spread agreement nor unanimous consensus. Therefore, the Randian value-judgment that altruism is evil is subjective.

If you contend that morality is not a social phenomena but rather depends only upon a single individual (subject) and the context of his/her judgment, then it is a relativistic, subjective judgment. To one person, altruism is the ultimate good while to another it is the ultimate evil. Any judgment that neither corresponds to mind independent physical reality nor has a wide spread consensus is subjective. Either way you slice it, there is no objectivity in objectivist ethics.

The theory of David Ricardo of comparative advantage as it applies to the output of a whole economy is as you say - applicable only to the output of the whole economy. Now, let us take an economy consisting of two people and see what the theory tells us. In fact, the theory of comparative advantage, extended, does not speak of economies, but of producers, as an economy is nothing more than the individual producers/traders/consumers.

Yes, and my contention stands. Even if children have comparative advantage at working in steel mills, nowadays we don't send kids to mills to work as child labor. When we send kids to school, they have zero monetary/material value to offer in exchange for the value of the education they receive.

Your rational point is entirely subjective and utterly emotional; it is pure whim devoid of the semblance of reason.

My point is that not every person suffering from poverty or living in deplorable conditions are blood sucking leaches. Some of them are loafers who are lazy eventhough they are fully capable of entering the job market. What you are overlooking is there are human beings who do not have the capacity to be productive members of our society; for example, the old and lame, infants and kids.

Productive work is the highest of virtues - unless oppressed, your people suffering from poverty and starvation are not virtuous.

Productive work is a virtue, no question about it. People suffering from poverty or otherwise living in deplorable conditions are not virtuous by virtue of their misfortune. Absolutely. I am not saying they are virtuous. I am saying SOME of them deserve our help.

Love is the highest of rewards.

I am glad you said this. If objectivists concede love is the highest of rewards, then even to an objectivist, altruistic behavior such as giving to one's children, taking care of elders who cannot take care of themselves, or risking/sacrificing one's live to save complete strangers can be justified by love.

[y_feldblum]

Firstly, by "pathologically illogical" I meant committing the same logical fallacy twice in a row.

your name calling and quick identification of others in objectivist terminology shows your lack of independent judgment and reliance on objectivism as a substitute for independent thought.

Your accusation here is unwarranted as it is based on a vague statement I made regarding your position which you incorrectly construed as another point against you.  Try giving the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe you need to brush up on logic 101 if you have ever taken the course.

Regarding my statement, read between the lines. "Your ad hominem ... again" ... what exactly does it succeed in - damning me?! I don't feel you have insulted me; I know you have done so twice. If you are sorry about something, recognize what it is and don't do it again.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re my colloquial logic - one judges that life is the fundamental good and observes that in order to live there are subsidiary actions it must take; one therefore judges that these actions are good as well. The topic is judgment, not action; your quarter example is irrelevant. Love is in no way altruistic; your old woman example is irrelevant. What would happen to you if you judged that altruism is the good and egoism the evil and acted consistently on that judgment?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objective judgment is in its entirety awareness. The subjectivist judge is not aware; neither is the intrinsicist judge. The former has nothing to be aware of; the latter does not exist (in the context of value) to be aware. Objectivity as yet does not imply necessary truth - ie, whatever one judges objectively is true. Theories of truth is not the topic of discussion. Neither does objectivity depend on the number of people sharing an opinion - that is pure subjectivity!

The Randian value-judgment that altruism is evil is:

"I observe in the world that the principle of anti-life is inexorably death; I judge that it is evil: ie, one who practices it is evil." Perfectly objective: the judgment is not based on whim and is not contextless.

Moreover, morality is not a social thing; it is personal. It is a code of values to guide a man in life in whatever setting, social or not, that he may be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You still misunderstand what comparative advantage is; along with researching that, look up marginal value / disvalue as well. Children can produce more later by investing in education now; and, children prefer more leisure to more labor.

If you are really interested in what happens with non-blood-sucking-leech loafers, read Atlas Shrugged. Moreover, deserve implies virtue.

Again, love is in no way altruistic. Perhaps you should research the Objectivist conception of love.

[AshRyan]

Our friend Chien here clearly has little to no understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism, and clearly has no intention of honestly seeking such understanding. His motive for participating on this forum is apparently simply to argue with some people with whom he disagrees, but without actually considering (or even making an honest effort to understand) any of their counterarguments. Thus, all he accomplishes is to waste both our time and his own.

I suggest ignoring him.

[Chien]

Our friend Chien here clearly has little to no understanding of the philosophy of Objectivism, and clearly has no intention of honestly seeking such understanding. His motive for participating on this forum is apparently simply to argue with some people with whom he disagrees, but without actually considering (or even making an honest effort to understand) any of their counterarguments. Thus, all he accomplishes is to waste both our time and his own.

I suggest ignoring him.

I have made a clear analysis of altruistic vs selfish behavior, their respective beneficiaries and the normal English definition of atruism / selfishness vs. Randian redefinition of these two terms. Did you not read what I have written?

You guys have been ignoring my rational arguments from the get go, attacking me personally throwing around catchy slogans without addressing the substance of my arguments. Stop being pseudo-intellectuals simply regurgitating Ayn Rand's prepackaged propaganda and start doing some independent thinking.

I recommend it.

[mordecai]

Chien, you should read the essay "Emergency Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. You seem to have the miscomprehension that objectivist ethics prohibits care for strangers and/or the disadvantaged.

As all values stem from the value of life, to all rational men life is a value in it's own. Therfore the preservation of the life of others is in the interest of a rational man.

Should you save a drowning man who is a stranger to you?

This depends on the risk there is of losing your most important value, yourself. If the risk is non-existant, then yes, unless you are a psychopath who doesn't value life at all, you're morally obligated to save him in order not to act against your own interest.

If the risk is high, it can not be expected that you value life in general more than your own life, and thus you should not take the risk.

If the person who is drowning is your wife, you can by objectivist ethics willing risk your own life for her sake. Because you value your wife higher than yourself.

So your belief that Objectivist ethics precludes solidarity is false.

This is a common fallacy, as altruists only believe solidarity can be achieved by force, and not by the goodness of man.

[y_feldblum]

«If the person who is drowning is your wife, you can by objectivist ethics willing risk your own life for her sake. Because you value your wife higher than yourself.»

Even more so - you can knowingly give up your life for her sake.

[Chien]

Chien, you should read the essay "Emergency Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. You seem to have the miscomprehension that objectivist ethics prohibits care for strangers and/or the disadvantaged.

I will read the essay; thank you for referring me to relavent texts. If objectivists care for strangers and/or the disadvantaged, then objectivist ethics is much much more palatable.

As all values stem from the value of life, to all rational men life is a value in it's own. Therfore the preservation of the life of others is in the interest of a rational man.

You have modified Ms. Rand's claim: she claimed life is the ultimate value, i.e. life qua man. Here is one of the logical flaws commited by Ms Rand. Life is a precondition for all values: Values --> life. And the contrapositive: ~life --> ~values. This is undisputed. However, saying that life is a precondition for all values does not warrant the illogical jump to the conclusion that life, as an end in itself, is the ultimate, highest of all values. If you modify Ms. Rand's position and say life is simply a value among many, then yes, I agree.

Another point, objectivsts use the word "rational" sparingly for all positions they hold and the word "irrational" to all claim contrary to their views. Rational means using reason or logic for decision making. Can reason or logic make decisions for human beings? NO. We have to make the decisions by setting up the criteria for judgment, values and objectives. Otherwise, we can rely on computers to make decisions for us. Logic can help us to more effectively achieve our goals (objectives that embody our values) but it cannot set the goals/values for us.

Should you save a drowning man who is a stranger to you?

This depends on the risk there is of losing your most important value, yourself.

Here Ms. Rand's fallacious claim raises its ugly head. Ms. Rand has not proven to the satisfaction of REASON that life is the most important value of all. Please refer to above.

If the risk is non-existant, then yes, unless you are a psychopath who doesn't value life at all, you're morally obligated to save him in order not to act against your own interest.

If the risk is high, it can not be expected that you value life in general more than your own life, and thus you should not take the risk.

The everyday definition of the word sacrifice is acts commited under certain conditions that benefit others while the actor's interest is harmed. The certain condition I am speaking of is that the actor must believe his/her actions can acheive an agent-neutral value (values that are not related to the actor's self-interests, for example, valuing your mother's life) that is greater than the actor's agent-relative values. The CHOICE of valuing one's own life above all other values, agent-relative or agent-neutral, is nothing but a choice.

If the person who is drowning is your wife, you can by objectivist ethics willing risk your own life for her sake. Because you value your wife higher than yourself.

Here you are saying objectivsts can value someone else's life over one's own life, which is inconsistent with the claim one's life is categorically the ultimate value. Now which is it? Either or. One's own life cannot be the ultimate highest value while at the same time, someone else's life/interests is valued more. You cannot have it both ways; as Ms. Rand said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

This is a common fallacy, as altruists only believe solidarity can be achieved by force, and not by the goodness of man.

Pls explain what you mean by solidarity. There are a myriad of different schools of thoughts out there; objectivsts tend to group everybody else under the term "collective altruists" without learning what they are really about.

[mordecai]

You have modified Ms. Rand's claim: she claimed life is the ultimate value, i.e. life qua man. Here is one of the logical flaws commited by Ms Rand. Life is a precondition for all values: Values --> life. And the contrapositive: ~life --> ~values. This is undisputed. However, saying that life is a precondition for all values does not warrant the illogical jump to the conclusion that life, as an end in itself, is the ultimate, highest of all values. If you modify Ms. Rand's position and say life is simply a value among many, then yes, I agree.

Another point, objectivsts use the word "rational" sparingly for all positions they hold and the word "irrational" to all claim contrary to their views. Rational means using reason or logic for decision making. Can reason or logic make decisions for human beings? NO. We have to make the decisions by setting up the criteria for judgment, values and objectives. Otherwise, we can rely on computers to make decisions for us. Logic can help us to more effectively achieve our goals (objectives that embody our values) but it cannot set the goals/values for us.

I fully unterstand your views, but there are some confusion here. What is the value of life? Life for me? Life for you? Life for my wife? Life for a stranger? Life for an animal? Universal life? These are all different values and shouldn't be mixed into one category. By the grace of nature we are equipped with certain instincts that are essential to our survival. First and foremost, our instinct of survival. If we had no desire to survive then we wouldn't value life as high as we do. Ergo, the process of assigning value is guided by both reason and the nature of man. There are of course some extreme cases of people who do not value life at all, neither his own nor others'. This tells us that life isn't the ultimate value for all humans, yet the claim is still valid because you cannot take such extreme cases in consideration.

Here Ms. Rand's fallacious claim raises its ugly head. Ms. Rand has not proven to the satisfaction of REASON that life is the most important value of all. Please refer to above.

This is not true. By observing the nature of human beeings, we can observe that humans possess a strong will to live. We observe that humans will go to extremes to stay alive. By the use of reason we realize that this is an intricate part of our nature. Without this latent will to outlive, we would perish. From there we can by the use of reason determine that life is our most important value (except for the aforementioned extreme cases of psykopaths)

That is a logical and rational conslusion of why life is our most important value.

The everyday definition of the word sacrifice is acts commited under certain conditions that benefit others while the actor's interest is harmed. The certain condition I am speaking of is that the actor must believe his/her actions can acheive an agent-neutral value (values that are not related to the actor's self-interests, for example, valuing your mother's life) that is greater than the actor's agent-relative values. The CHOICE of valuing one's own life above all other values, agent-relative or agent-neutral, is nothing but a choice.

Values are not exclusively determined by choice. Most of our values are determined subconsciously. You cannot for instance choose not to value your wife anymore, nor can you choose to stop to value life. However, some values require some level of choice. "Do I choose to believe this person? What are my senses telling me?". And by the use of reason you can also discover irrational values.

However, the act of self-sacrifice almost never occurs naturally. It is promoted by altruism, but even with altruism as the ethics of the last millennia, taxes are collected at gunpoint. Because altruism is not compatible with the nature of humans. Many acts that are considered noble and virtuous, and even selfless, are acts of self interest.

If ou save a drowning man, many would call it a selfless act. Yet this is a quite horrendous claim, as it implies that other men have noe value to you. This is the fallacy of altruism.

Here you are saying objectivsts can value someone else's life over one's own life, which is inconsistent with the claim one's life is categorically the ultimate value. Now which is it? Either or. One's own life cannot be the ultimate highest value while at the same time, someone else's life/interests is valued more. You cannot have it both ways; as Ms. Rand said, you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Life is the ultimate goal, but it's not necessarily your own life. If you love your wife highly enough to say you would die for her, you value her higher. This is not opposed by objectivist ethics. However, if you value other persons higher than yourself, it's relative to the value of your own life - if your wife dies you would find your own life unbearable and worthless, so by valuing your wife higher than yourself, you try to avoid the situation of losing her, and becoming depressed and possibly commit suicide. This is of course not your conscious reason for valuing her.

I hope this cleared up some of the confusion.

[Tom Rexton]

Chien, before I make a reply, may I suggest that you read "The Objectivst Ethics" and then be more clear what your particular problem with Objectivist ethics is. You shouldn't give general things such as "I don't agree with it, it is unreasonable, unprovable, bla, bla, bla". You shouldn't ask anyone to prove or demonstrate really general principles which would take very long essays (if not a whole book) to do so adequately.

Now, as to the reason why "life" is the most important value, if I am not mistaken it is because life is, not just the precondition of value, but also the reason one lives for in the first place. But "life" in Objectivism is MUCH more than mere survival. It is the pursuit of hapiness through the achievement of rational values. Thus if a person values another highly, he may risk (or even give up) his life* to save that other.

To be more precise: if the alternative is either one's own death and or the death of a loved one, consider the conditions of each. The Objectivst ethics would say that one should choose which ever is more valueable. If one loves another to extent that the nonexistence (i.e., death) of the loved one would mean total misery and suffering, then properly, one's own death would be the better choice.

Think about why Howard Roark says that he would give his life to save Gail Wynand, or why John Galt says that he would kill himself if they ever attempt to torture Dagny to get him to talk. There is no contradiction or reversal there when one realizes that "life" in the greater sense is much more than just mere survival.

Think about this for now (John Galt to Dagny, Atlas Shrugged, Chapter 8, Part 3):

"You must take their side fully, consistently and loudly as your capacity for deception will permit. You must act as one of them. You must act as my worst enemy. If you do, I'll have a chance to come out of it alive. They need me too much, they'll go to any extreme before they bring themselves to kill me. Whatever they extort from people, they can extort it only through their victim's values--and they have no value of mine to hold over my head, nothing to threaten me with. But if they get the slightest suspicion of what we are to each other, they will have you on a torture rack--I mean, physical torture--before my eyes, in less than a week. I am not going to wait for that. At the first mention of a threat to you, I will kill myself and stop them right there."

"I don't have to tell you [...] that if I do it, it won't be an act of self-sacrifice, I do not care to live on their terms, I do not care to obey them and I do not care to see you enduring a drawn out murder. There will be no values for me to seek after that--and I do not care to exist without values."

-------

*(Observe the subtle differences in the definition of "life" in two different context: the former "life" as the pursuit of hapiness through the achievement of rational values, and the latter "life" as a mere state of being alive, i.e., survival).

BTW, valuing your mother's life, provided that she, too, values yours, is NOT AT ALL "agent-neutral" or self-sacrificial. It DOES serve you interest love your family (on certain conditions, of course). Again, why are you assuming that valuing anyone other than yourself is agent-neutral?